IPR In Industrial Designs And Functional Innovation.
1. Industrial Designs: Definition and IPR Protection
Industrial design refers to the aesthetic or ornamental aspect of a product, including shape, pattern, or color, that makes the product visually appealing. It does not cover technical or functional features, which fall under patents.
Protection under law:
In India, governed by the Designs Act, 2000.
Globally, industrial designs can be protected under WIPO’s Hague System.
Key requirements:
Novelty: The design must be new and original.
Non-obviousness: Should not be an obvious modification of prior designs.
Applicability: Must be applied to an article of manufacture.
Rights conferred: Exclusive right to use, sell, and license the design for 15–25 years (depending on the jurisdiction).
2. Functional Innovation vs. Aesthetic Design
Functional innovation refers to technical or utilitarian improvements in a product. Unlike design, it is protected as a patent or sometimes utility model, not under industrial design law.
Conflict/Overlap:
Some products have both aesthetic and functional novelty, e.g., smartphones, ergonomic furniture.
Courts often have to distinguish whether a feature is purely ornamental or functional.
Example: A chair with a unique visual pattern is design-protected; if it improves posture, that aspect may need a patent.
3. Landmark Cases in Industrial Designs and Functional Innovation
Case 1: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012, US)
Jurisdiction: United States
Key Issue: Industrial design vs. functional design in smartphones.
Facts: Apple sued Samsung for copying the ornamental design of the iPhone (rounded corners, grid layout).
Outcome: Court awarded Apple ~$1 billion initially for design patent infringement.
Significance: Highlighted how courts distinguish aesthetic design from functional aspects, reinforcing that design patents protect visual features even in multifunctional devices.
Case 2: Nestlé v. Cadbury (UK, 2011)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Key Issue: Shape of chocolate bars and design protection.
Facts: Nestlé claimed that Cadbury’s chocolate bar design copied its Toblerone-like triangular shape.
Outcome: Court held that functional features (triangular shape for breakability) are not protected as a design; only ornamental features can be protected.
Significance: This is a prime example of functional innovation not being covered under industrial design.
Case 3: Reebok International Ltd. v. Dr. Scholl’s Inc. (1998, US)
Jurisdiction: United States
Key Issue: Solely functional design in footwear.
Facts: Reebok tried to claim a shoe sole’s functional cushion design as a design patent.
Outcome: Court rejected because design patents protect ornamentation, not functionality. Functional innovations must go through utility patents.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of separating design rights from technical functionality.
Case 4: BMW v. Shuanghuan Auto (Germany, 2004)
Jurisdiction: Germany
Key Issue: Copying vehicle design.
Facts: BMW sued Shuanghuan for producing a car that looked almost identical to BMW X5.
Outcome: German court recognized industrial design infringement, awarding damages to BMW.
Significance: International recognition of visual distinctiveness in industrial design as enforceable rights.
Case 5: Nokia v. Oppo (India, 2020)
Jurisdiction: India
Key Issue: Smartphone shape and design vs. functional innovation.
Facts: Nokia accused Oppo of copying its phone designs, particularly the ornamental layout and icons.
Outcome: Delhi High Court recognized design rights, emphasizing that design infringement can be separate from patent infringement.
Significance: Reinforced the Indian Designs Act framework in technology-driven functional products.
Case 6: Philips v. Remington (Netherlands, 1995)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Key Issue: Electric shaver design and ergonomic function.
Facts: Philips challenged Remington for producing a shaver with a similar ergonomic design.
Outcome: Court ruled that ergonomic and functional improvements cannot be protected as design; only purely ornamental aspects were protected.
Significance: Clarifies the limit of industrial design protection in functional products.
4. Practical Implications
Dual Protection Strategy:
Companies often file both design and utility patents: aesthetic features under design law, functional features under patents.
Example: Apple: iPhone design patents + multiple utility patents on touchscreen functionality.
Global IP Considerations:
Hague System allows registering industrial designs in multiple jurisdictions.
TRIPS Agreement mandates minimum standards of design protection.
Avoiding Overlap Issues:
Design registrations should focus on ornamental aspects.
Patent applications should cover technical or functional innovations, even if they affect the design.
5. Summary Table: Design vs Functional Innovation
| Feature | Industrial Design | Functional Innovation |
|---|---|---|
| Protects | Aesthetic, ornamental aspects | Technical, utilitarian aspects |
| Law | Designs Act, 2000 (India); Design Patents (US) | Patents, Utility Models |
| Duration | 15–25 years | 20 years (patent) |
| Examples | Shape, color, pattern | Ergonomic structure, software algorithm, mechanical improvement |
| Key Cases | Apple v. Samsung; BMW v. Shuanghuan | Reebok v. Dr. Scholl’s; Philips v. Remington |
In short: Industrial design rights are purely ornamental, whereas functional innovations require patent protection. Courts worldwide carefully examine whether a claimed design is functional or aesthetic before granting protection.
RELATED Blog
comments